| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Warrax |
Posted - 30 Aug 2007 : 16:19:08
As far as I can tell, the Bhaalspawn saga is non-canonical, despite the novelization by Philip Athans.
How do you guys handle it in your games? Do you ignore it or incorporate it? |
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kuje |
Posted - 30 Aug 2007 : 21:47:43
No worries, I was just taking on my frustration since this is a long standing argument. :) |
| Warrax |
Posted - 30 Aug 2007 : 20:09:00
Oh I fully recognize that; you can't write a 1,500-page novel for FR, it just doesn't work. I in no way think that it's Phil Athans' fault that the books are so short. If anything, the editors probably cut it down the way they did Spellfire and such.
And you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that the story completely skips the whole coming-of-age theme. A wide-eyed kid from Candlekeep really shouldn't be all bitter and experience-hardened.
Like I said, I normally enjoy Athans' stuff and this really wasn't representative of the way he usually writes. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 30 Aug 2007 : 20:04:56
You're welcome. 
quote:
Originally posted by Warrax
But BG and BG2 were done as thin-spined novels and that's anti-thetical to canonizing a game series that had something like 70+ hours of gameplay and a rather lengthy and complex plot.
To be fair, there's only so much room in a standard FR novel--novelizing the entire game with all the interesting subplots could well take thousands of pages (and, arguably, might not work that well as a novel). But I do think that the novels really missed the theme of the BG games, which is supposed to be a classic coming of age story. When the protagonist starts the story as a hardened mercenary who has already killed people and has been to places like Amn (ie. Abdel Adrian), the nature of the original story gets twisted beyond recognition. The BG protognist is supposed to be a kid who's never adventured before (and probably dreams of being an adventurer), grew up cloistered behind the walls of Candlekeep, and suddenly has to figured out why so many people are suddenly out to get him/her. It's supposed to be about growing up, getting tougher, and finding oneself, not about starting off a hardened killer. |
| Warrax |
Posted - 30 Aug 2007 : 19:27:00
Sorry to bring this up again, Kuje, I'd never seen anything like that before. I don't frequent the WotC forums or anything, so I'd never come across this information.
And yeah, with due respect to Philip Athans, I thought the Baldur's Gate novels were terrible.
I enjoyed his work on Annihilation in the WOTSQ series, I enjoyed Whisper of Waves and mean to finish that trilogy some day soon, I enjoyed the Realms of the Deep anthology (which I believe he edited) and as I recall, he worked with RAS on Paths of Darkness...
But BG and BG2 were done as thin-spined novels and that's anti-thetical to canonizing a game series that had something like 70+ hours of gameplay and a rather lengthy and complex plot. It didn't help that Abdel was a walking and horribly boring stereotype. Anyway, maybe he had strict editor-imposed guidelines, which seems likely because those books didn't read like his other stuff.
I usually do as Rino mentioned, using a Bhaalspawn of my own devising. I tend to do a lot of post-ToT gaming, though I've been pondering whether or not the next game I run will be pre-ToT just for the giggles.
Alright, well that pretty much settles my questions, thanks guys. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 30 Aug 2007 : 19:10:20
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
That's pretty much the same for me as well. Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul all still exist in my FR, and without the grand event of the Time of Troubles occuring in my Realms, there's simply no need for the Bhaalspawn saga.
I have to say the same. I am stuck in the 40's and 50's as far as Faerun goes. I enjoyed the PC game, but it is not something that I see as part of the Realms for me personally, no matter how canon. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 30 Aug 2007 : 17:45:07
Poor Kuje. Geez...
As for my personal Realms, the events happened as *my* character (not Abdel Adrian) experienced them in the BG games. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 30 Aug 2007 : 17:34:14
Kuje beat me to it! 
Anyways, the only source I can think to add is Power of Faerûn, which also includes canon references to the Bhaalspawn saga. The sourcebook Ed wrote is Volo's Guide to Baldur's Gate.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
As for how I handle it, well, I don't since I never used the ToT's so there's no point for me to include the Bhaalspawn since Bhaal never died in my FR.
That's pretty much the same for me as well. Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul all still exist in my FR, and without the grand event of the Time of Troubles occuring in my Realms, there's simply no need for the Bhaalspawn saga.
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 30 Aug 2007 : 16:54:43
Uh, sigh.
Tired of this info since I've been showing, for seven years now, that the novels and Dragons articles are canon.
"Are the Baldur’s Gate novels canon?
Yes because WOTC lists them taking place in 1368 and 1369. Also the characters from the novels were stat’d up in Dragon issue 262 in 2e and there is a Bhaalspawn template for 3e in Dragon issue #288. Ed wrote a sourcebook that goes with the novels. Also Jim Butler answered this question in 2000 on the FR mailing list. There's also a sentence about them in Lost Empires of Faerun. Furthermore, the author of the last novel said this:
<Ulairi> <Howdy> Are the BG games considered canon Forgotten Realms history by WotC?
<Drew2_Bio> Because of our multiple endings, the BG games can't be considered "official" in the FR world. However, the novels (including the upcoming TOB novel - another free plug for me!) are considered canon."
Nothing against you, I'm just exhausted about the arguments about these novels and if they are or are not canon. There's so many sources showing they are, as you can see from my FAQ response.
As for how I handle it, well, I don't since I never used the ToT's so there's no point for me to include the Bhaalspawn since Bhaal never died in my FR. |
|
|
